Occupancy Permits Coming to a Home Near You

Posted on by David Stokes

St. Louis County has instituted the second part of the legislation passed back in 2005 that requires occupancy permits in unincorporated areas of the county. This may come as a surprise to our regular readers, but I am not opposed to occupancy permits. I think their practical benefits outweigh the theoretical issues I may have with them. I don’t think they are particularly burdensome, considering the amount of work that always goes into buying or selling a home. I also like that, in a very small way, they make it easier for homeowners to sell their own homes instead of having to hire real estate agents.

Occupancy permits have worked very well in University City, where I live, and other cities that have instituted them in order to protect neighborhoods’ housing stock. University City may have been one of the first cities in the nation to institute the occupancy permit requirement — but I could be wrong about that.

I think this program will be good for Saint Louis County’s unincorporated areas, which there should be more of. Why do I say there should be more unincorporated areas? Because thousands of county residents live in tiny municipalities that contract with Saint Louis County to perform almost all of their cities’ services. If the residents just disincorporated their cities, they would get those exact same services from the county, provided without the middleman — in this case being the municipalities that they pay taxes to, which use the very same tax money to contract with Saint Louis County.

Everyone pays the same property taxes to Saint Louis County whether they live in a municipality or not — 56 cents per hundred dollars of assessed valuation. (Other issues also effect the comparison, such as fire districts, but you get the point.) Some people get enough benefits from municipal services to justify the additional taxes of living in a city, others do not. That is up to them, not me, but I really believe more people need to seriously consider disincorporating as a real option. It worked for Peerless Park.

The Fairness Doctrine is Not Fair!

Posted on by Maurice Harris

Over the weekend the St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s Political Fix blog discussed Congress’ attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. This would require radio stations to feature balanced programming that represents both viewpoints of any given issue. According to Majority Leader Sen. Dick Durbin, he believes that the Fairness Doctrine is necessary because:

“I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides
of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Well it’s nice that he cares about making sure that people get to hear all viewpoints, but to do that by regulating the radio industry is misguided. There are many other information outlets people can turn to besides the radio, such as the Internet, television, newspapers, and even books! Just because some people may not like what they hear on the radio doesn’t mean it has to be made "fair." As I always say, "If you don’t like it, turn it off."

Forced Desegregation Isn’t the Answer, School Choice Is!

Posted on by Maurice Harris

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, decided that the Seattle, WA, and Louisville, KY, school assignment plans were unconstitutional, since the plans were based on race. Of course, there are many people who are outraged by the decision, and some people believe that this will somehow lead to increased segregation. Yet, Chief Justice John Roberts stated why he believes the plans were unconstitutional:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race."

During the past 50 years, desegregation has worked well to a point, but instead of trying to force people  from different backgrounds to go to the same school, we should give parents options to send their kids to the schools of their choice. Through methods of school choice, from the Voluntary Inter-district Transfer Program that is used in St. Louis to send city students to the county and vice-versa, to school vouchers that allow people the freedom to choose where to send their kids, we can accomplish the goal of desegregation without the controversy. People of all backgrounds, no matter what race they are, want to choose good schools for their children, and at the end of the day, government does not need to force desegregation on people — they will choose it.

Supplying Prices on Demand

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Yesterday’s Kansas City Star ran an article about congressional legislation that "would make it a criminal offense for gas prices to be ‘unconscionably’ high." The article’s headline? "Gas-price legislation would hurt consumers, oil group says" — undoubtedly true, but an unfortunate choice of words all the same.

Using the oil industry as the lone dissenting voice to legislation that seems populist and consumer-friendly on the surface makes it look like any objection to the bill is disingenous. After all, an oil industry spokeswoman would have to be against price controls, right? For those who have an instinctual us-vs.-them attitude about business, and the oil industry in particular, it seems like naked self-interest masquerading as concern for consumer welfare. But this is an objection worth heeding. If it had made a few more phone calls, the Star could well have titled its article, "Gas-price legislation would hurt consumers, says almost every economist on the planet".

The fundamental relationship between supply, demand, and price isn’t a matter of opinion or conjecture. Changing one of those variables by legislative fiat changes the others as well. If you set a cap on prices, more people will buy more gas and fewer oil producers will have an incentive to supply the market — leading to shortages. Simple as that.

A New Way of Driving

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Lily Tomlin once said, "The road to success is always under construction." The same can be said for Missouri’s roads — and for MoDOT’s efforts to improve its roadwork efforts.

Now that we have the great news that Missouri has "sharply improved" road quality during the past few years, it seems prescient that our newest policy analyst, David Stokes, recently wrote an article (reprinted by Missouri Political News Service) praising MoDOT for its innovative efforts to streamline its construction projects — pursuing public-private partnerships, using the "design-build" model, etc.

Competition, economies of scale, and real pricing mechanisms all make the economy more efficient — and when these principles are brought to bear in the public sector, they can make government services more valuable while saving taxpayers a bundle. Let’s hope MoDOT’s road-care policies will always remain "under construction."

Missouri is Riding Smoother!

Posted on by Maurice Harris

An article in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Missouri roads have improved sharply:

The report from the Reason Foundation, a non-profit policy group based
in Los Angeles, says Missouri "sharply improved" its pavement
conditions from 2000 to 2005, at a time when highway officials were
starting a construction blitz that repaired 2,200 miles of highway.

In 2000, the state’s highways ranked 38th. Today’s report puts the state at 17th.

The vast improvement in Missouri roads can be attributed to the shift in focus by MoDOT to maintenance of current roads during the past six years. There are still problems, though, with Missouri bridges, where Missouri ranks near the bottom. That should change once the contract is approved to rebuild over 800 bridges in Missouri. Another problem of note that because of the shift away from new projects, there is a list of projects that needs to be completed:

As a result, some projects have languished for years, such as building
a new Mississippi River bridge, extending Maryland Heights Expressway
and expanding the Page Avenue extension farther into St. Charles
County.

Overall, it is a great sign that Missouri is wisely investing in keeping its roads up to date and safe for its residents.

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

Posted on by Kathleen Navin

The Goldwater Institute recently issued a news release on a lawsuit filed against the Arizona Department of Education (ADE). The lawsuit aims to protect the autonomy and rights of the state’s charter schools and is in response to the following:

The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) has mandated that the schools align their curricula to an ADE-determined grade-by-grade curriculum sequence.

Part of the appeal and success of charter schools has been the ability to try new curriculum that better suits students’ interests and needs. These schools should not be required to change the very thing that makes them so successful. The charter schools involved do not appear to need any assistance in deciding which curriculum is best for their students:

BASIS Tucson, BASIS Scottsdale, Veritas Preparatory Academy in Phoenix, Chandler Preparatory Academy and Mesa Preparatory Academy — include four of the ten highest-performing public schools in the state based on AIMS test scores. Newsweek has named BASIS Tucson one of the nation’s ten best high schools for two consecutive years.

Hopefully, Missouri will not repeat the ADE’s mistake, instead allowing its growing number of charter schools the freedom necessary to provide an innovative and quality education for their students.

Shame on You, Wildwood

Posted on by Maurice Harris

In today’s St. Louis Post Dispatch an article discusses the possibility that the City of Wildwood will probably not accept the petitions of its citizens who want to vote on the building of an $8 million city hall!

Residents collected roughly 3,400 signatures to get two issues on the November ballot. Now they’re being told the city may not honor their petitions.

It’s sad to see when governments do not listen to the people that elected them to office, especially on the local level. Hopefully, the Wildwood City Council will heed the petitions to allow an issue that involves taxpayers’ dollars being spent on this type of project to be brought to the voters. For the huge amount they are spending on this new city hall, it almost sounds like a gimmick like the monorail from the Simpsons. It looks nice, but doesn’t work too well.

Columbia, IL, Does It Right!

Posted on by Maurice Harris

In St. Louis and other cities and towns in Missouri, the use of TIFs and tax incentives to encourage development is rampant. In Columbia, Illinois, it is different. In the St. Louis Post Dispatch today an article discusses why the Columbia city council voted against two huge developments, one of which could have brought Legoland to the Midwest. One of the main reasons given by alderman Brad Oberkfell was that he wouldn’t support any project that would need tax incentives:

Previously, the council had supported exploring development opportunities involving Columbia Crossing. But that was before the April election. Three newly elected council members, including Oberkfell, ran on campaigns against using tax incentives for development purposes. And Oberkfell said the proposed theme park plan involved the potential use of tax incentives.

These leaders understand that economic growth happens when businesses see opportunities there, not because they receive tax incentives and TIFs. If businesses see potential profits in a certain area, they will come to cities to start businesses anyway. Congrats to Columbia on not giving away taxpayer dollars for private companies!

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging